"Fruit for the sightscreen."

June 2013

How many times does one have to bang ones head against a wall to get the point across that informed player rotation is a symptom, not a cause. If Australia had a strong, injury free bowling attack it would not rotate:

MICKEY Arthur isn't the only one paying the price for Australian cricket's poor reputation with chief executive officer James Sutherland promising fans there would be no more rotation in Test matches.

“Looking ahead to the Ashes series that we will see in England and next summer in Australia you won’t see any of that rotation policy in the fashion that we have in the past. It (rotation) is about providing opportunity for players in a team that’s in transition so that selectors can give players an opportunity at international level to see how they cope with that and to respond.”

On a more sinister note, it is interesting to read Stakeholders Sutherland had indeed negotiated player rotation with the broadcaster(s). Which of these three do you think holds the most sway? Which is the bigger, ahem, stakeholder?

The controversial rotation policy has upset fans, commentators and broadcasters in recent times and its death will not be widely mourned.

You can now see why Stakey was guarded in his comments vis-a-vis Nine and rotations. Yes, he has made a distinction between the one dayers and the Tests, but it is nevertheless a concession CA made concessions to Nine.

Hot on the heels of the Australia A victory over Glue-Sester-Shire (according to an SEN newsreader) Mickey Arsur gets the arth. This Ashes just goes from strength to strength. Personally, I would not have gone near the Mickster after he masterminded South Africa's short-and-wide tactic to Our Phil Hughes in 2009. Punted by South Africa. Coached WA. Not exactly a glowing CV. Then it turned out that none of the Aussie cricketers (or, for a variety of reasons, Aussie cricket heavy-weights) liked him; not that liking the coach is necessarily a KPI, but it may help, and may even have prevented Australia becoming a stock of laughing. And of course there was the homework.

Several things wrong with this ad for Sportsbet in a field near Tullamarine airport: 1) we "barrack" for Australia, they "root" for Uncle Sam; 2) "rooting" as a pun on "roos" is wrong since a roo is not a wallaby; 3) nationalistic pr is prone to fail; and 4) Joe Root jokes.

''people at home want to see the best players playing and we urge Cricket Australia to pick the best players every time … we've got to have the best players on the paddock to rate''

''I think we've got a better understanding on that. Last year that balance was skewed too much in favour of resting some players so from now on there will be a lot more discussion between CA and the broadcaster about that.''

''We don't mind paying if we can get some value for it.''

I maintain what I wrote in January: it would be staggering if CA had allowed Nine to influence team selection, informally or otherwise. Nevertheless, while Stakeholders Sutherland's riposte begins robustly it trails away with its "common goal" equivocation. No mention of the "despicable" he brandished after Cow Corner Warner snotted Dudley Root:

''Cricket has a long-standing and successful relationship with the Nine Network but team selections and scheduling are matters for Cricket Australia.''

''The national selection panel selects the Australian teams. With the volume of international cricket being played, it will continue to be necessary for us to manage player workloads appropriately. We'll continue to consult with our broadcasters on scheduling issues.''

''It's something we have always done. We have a common goal with our broadcast partners to maximise the number of fans watching and enjoying cricket. We'll consider all ideas and then make the appropriate decisions.''

CA has bought into a whole heap of fiasco if it has entered into any kind of agreement with Nine to allow the valued broadcast partner to influence team selection. But even the mere impression CA and Nine may have entered into such an agreement, or that Nine is driving selection is just as damaging. Maybe that's Browne's gambit: ratchet up pressure on CA to ditch rotations. (Of a more general nature: just how much does public posturing influence official decision making?)

Allan Border, the captain who led Australia's underdog Ashes triumph in 1989, says the current team will be galvanised by mocking predictions from Sir Ian Botham and the English press that a 5-0 whitewash is imminent.

The sorry nature of the loss at Edgbaston on Saturday will have hurt Australia but at least its batsmen know what to expect for the next few months after England's bowlers revealed their recipe for retaining the Ashes.

When paceman James Anderson was asked whether it was Bopara's role to prepare the ball for reverse swing, he deflected the question with all the skill you would expect of someone with 544 international wickets.

''We've all got our jobs to do, and we try to look after the ball as well as we can. It's mainly a question of keeping it dry and not letting too much moisture get in the way. Fortunately we made it reverse quite early. The pitch was very abrasive … and we bowled a lot of across-the-seam deliveries early on to try and help the process along.''

That probably contains more than a sprinkling of mind games, but if the Poms get the ball moving, either way, well, you don't need me to draw you a diaphram.

"Hatred is something peculiar. You will always find it strongest and most violent where there is the lowest degree of culture."

Achtung, Fritzy. I put it to you that the English, long considered a touchstone of culture, hate Australians more than Australians hate the English. As far as cricket is concerned, anyway.

"England and Australia are two countries separated by the same culture."

~~ George Bernard Cobber

David Gower is kidding himself if he thinks Aussie crowds are feral and, by inference, English crowds are not:

Asked if England's cricket relationship with Australia represented a clash of cultures, Gower told the Radio Times magazine: "I'm tempted to say, how can you have a clash of cultures when you're playing against a country with no culture? That would almost be sledging."

Manfully avoiding the temptation to resort to Ciceronian praeteritio with reference to soccer crowds, the only thing that has kept English cricket crowds in order is the fact that they were long time losers. Now that they are winning English crowds have taken on a particularly Australian flavour. While they are funny losers, as winners they are every bit as obnoxious as Australians.